Kolkata Court June 1917 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abdul Hakim Khan Vs. Bdzruk Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.658
Richardson, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner, Abdul Hakim Khan. The petitioner was tried by a Magistrate exercising first class powers upon a charge of forgery framed under Section 465 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate found him not guilty and acquitted him under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The complainant in the case then moved the Sessions Judge of Backergunge upon the grounds that the document to which the charge related was a valuable security and that the petitioner should properly have been charged under Section 467 of the Penal Code and committed for trial upon that charge to the Court of Session.3. It may be mentioned that an offence punishable under Section 465 is triable by a Magistrate of the 1st Class, while the Court of Session alone is empowered to try the aggravated offence of forging a valuable security, punishable under Section 467.4. The Sessions Judge, having heard the matter, held that the offence alleged fell und...
Broja Krishna Ghose Sardar Vs. Benimadhab Ghose Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.744
Fletcher, J,1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the learned District Judge-of the 24 Pergannahs, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Basirhat. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to set aside certain alienations made by his guardian appointed under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. It is common ground in this cape that a suit of this nature must be brought by the plaintiff within three years of attaining majority. The question is whether the present suit was brought within that period. The plaintiff wanted to give in evidence the proceedings in which the guardian was appointed and the cause title of which apparently stated the age of the plaintiff on that date. The learned Judge rejected that evidence, as far as I can see, on these grounds: First of all, that that statement in the cause title in the matter of the Guardians and Wards Act must have been founded upon a statement mad& by the proposed guardian; the proposed guardian ought to have b...
Radhanath Sasmal Vs. Uttam Chandra Maiti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.879
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order which purports to have been made under Order XVI, Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. That rule is in these terms: 'Where any party to a suit present in Court refuses, without lawful excuse, when required by the Court, to give the evidence or to produce any document then and there in his possession or power, the Court may pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.' The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of mesne profits. There had been a previous suit between the parties for possession and mesne profits. A certified copy of the judgment in that suit was in the possession of the plaintiff who was present in Court. The Munsif expressed a desire to see that judgment in order to ascertain the scope of the previous suit and the order made therein. The plaintiff produced the judgment which was perused by the Munsif. The Munsif then called upon the plaintiff to file ...
The Eralijool Tea Company, Limited and anr. Vs. Nagendro Nath Chowdhur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.47
1. The plaintiff and the principal defendant the Eralijool Tea Company, Limited, are the owners of adjacent tea gardens in the district of Sylbet. The other defendant is the Company's manager. In this judgment 1 shall speak of the defendant company as the defendant.2. The plaintiff's garden is on the east and the defendant's garden on the west of a low range of hills (known as the Borail Hills) running north and south. Near the middle of this range there is a gap and the land here forms a basin towards which the drainage of the defendant's garden from the north as well as the south naturally gravitates, though there was never any natural defined channel. The slope of the ground on the plaintiff's side of the hills is similar. On this side a stream known as the Bogajan Cherra flows from north to south to a point opposite the gap where it turns due east and eventually runs into the Son Bhil some miles away. A tributory stream from the south known as the Balia Cherra meets the Bogajan not...
Bhudhar Chandra Roy Choudhury Vs. Nanda Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.682
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a judgment of the learned District Judge of the 24 Pergannas, dated the 5th August 1915, modifying the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of the same District. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for enhancement of rent on the ground that there had been a rise in the average local prices of staple food crops during the currency of the present rent. The tenancy, as found by the learned Judge, was created in the year 1848, and the view that the learned Judge has taken is this, that in order to enable a landlord to claim an increased rent under the provisions of Section 30, Sub-section (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the landlord must prove by positive evidence what was the value of staple food crops at the date of the inception of the tenancy so that the Court could, compare those prices when so proved with the current list that is kept by the Government under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act and decide whether ...
Amulya Chandra Roy Chowdhury Vs. Shiva Krishna Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.768
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed. The defendant appeals against the rate of interest which he has to pay according to the terms of the contract under which the property is held. He purchased the property with full knowledge apparently of what the terms of the contract were. He knew that, if he did not pay his rent on the proper day, the rent in arrears would carry interest at the heavy rate of 60 per cent, per annum. He might have avoided this liability, first of all, by not purchasing the property and, secondly, by paying his rent in proper time. It seems that there is no case of hardship against the defendant-appellant at all. He has put his head deliberately into the noose and for good or bad, he is a tenant holding his land at a rent which carries interest at 60 per cent, per annum when in arrears. The other point argued is that the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court ought not to have allowed interest at the contractual rate from the date of the institution of t...
Aghore Nath Shaha Vs. Natabar Bairagi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.406
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed. The finding of the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is that the plaintiff's mortgage is an usufructuary-mortgage. That is also what the plaintiff himself says in his plaint and from his statement of the mortgage in his plaint it is quite clear that it is an usufructuary mortgage If it is an usufructuary mortgage, there is no remedy either by foreclosure or by sale, and the plaintiff having brought this suit, he has been given a simple money decree for the amount due on his mortgage. That seems to be the only relief that he can get in this suit.2. The other point is that the plaintiff ought to be permitted to withdraw from the present suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit for possession of the mortgaged property. One cannot say generally what ought to be the Rule in such a case. All that one can say is whether or not the case under consideration is a proper case in which to exercise that discretion. In this case, we ought not to ...
Midnapur Zemindary Company Ltd. Vs. Jogendra Kumar Bhaumick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.584
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed. The very satisfactory judgment given by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is quite clear and I think the reasons are unanswerable, For the idea that is said to have been got from the books that no case of res judicata arises in a rent suit, there is no authority at all. The case of res judicata may arise in a rent suit just as much as in any other suit. The case need not rest only on the questions of constructive res judicata as found by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, but also on actual case of res judicata. There was an issue as to what was the jama payable, and the answer which the learned Judge gave was that the rent must be assessed on the land at 15| annas per bigha according to the compromise decree. There was an express adjudication on that point that the rent was payable at the rate of 15| annas per bigha and, therefore, the case is really a much stronger one than set out in the judgment of the learned ...
In Re: an Advocate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.63
Sanderson, C. J.1. In this case we have considered the complaints which have been made against the Advocate. After reading the affidavits we thought it necessary that we should further enquire into the matter, more especially with regard to two questions namely, the circumstances under which the work was originally undertaken by the Advocate, and the alleged non-return of his fees when he was unable to conduct the case in Court. Accordingly, we held the further enquiry yesterday.2. With regard to the first question, we are of opinion that there is no need for any further action by the Court.3. I take the account which is given by the Advocate himself in his affidavit, paragraph 2; after setting out that the petitioner was introduced to him at his house by one Mrs. Neil, and pointing out that the petitioner told him that he had a claim against the Uncovenanted Service Family Pension Fund, he goes on to say that: 'He further told me that considerable correspondence extending over ten or ...
Charles Henry Brooke Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.129
1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under the Calcutta Police Act (Bengal Act IV of 1866), Section 66, Sub-section 4 (a), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20.2. It appears that the petitioner is a building contractor and has undertaken the erection of a masonry or brick building at premises No. 40/1 on the Strand Road. In the course of his building operations on the 20th of March last the petitioner unloaded and deposited some 2,000 bricks on the foot-path or pavement in front of the said premises and thereby, it has been found, caused obstruction in or on the foot-path for a period pf some six hours or more.3. That the foot-path or pavement in question is part of a public thoroughfare and that obstruction was caused in the manner set out has not been disputed and the defence is that the acts complained of, having been done in pursuance of and in conformity with a license granted by the Chairman of the Corporation of Calcutta, the petitioner had not thereby committed an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »